Effects of Shared Information Bias: I

Shared information bias is the tendency of groups to spend time and energy discussing information that most group members already know. Consequently they have less time and energy to devote to information that only a few members know. [Stasser & Titus 1985] [Van Swol 2007] [Forsyth 2010] This bias in the way the group invests its resources leads to misalignment between reality and the group's perceptions, and eventually to bad decisions.

For example, in discussing possible solutions to a technical problem, the portion of the discussion devoted to information that most group members already know will tend to be disproportionately large, in terms of importance, compared to the portion of the discussion regarding technical subtleties known only to the few group members with relevant expertise. In part, this happens because the number of people who are familiar with the commonly shared information is greater than the number of people who are familiar with the less commonly shared information. But research suggests that the shared information bias is greater than mere numbers would predict.

Although bad decisions are the most commonly cited effect of shared information bias, the damage it causes transcends the substance of the immediate decision at hand. That's why it's important to consider other effects of the bias, to motivate groups to address shared information bias with the attention it deserves.

Here, in Part I of this exploration, are four ways shared information bias harms group processes.

Members experience a false sense of comfort and well being

Repeated Shared information bias leads to
misalignment between reality and
the group's perceptions, and
eventually to bad decisionsexperiences of discussions that fail to challenge group members' beliefs and preconceptions can enhance their sense of comfort and well being, however false it might be. This misapprehension of the group's actual state can expose it to great risk of chaos if it encounters a situation to which it has been rendered vulnerable by this false sense of security.

Enhanced likelihood of groupthink

Groupthink is a group-psychological dynamic that causes the group to converge on an outcome not on the basis of the tenets to which the group claims it subscribes, but instead as a means of achieving group harmony and conformity. The probability of an irrational and dysfunctional outcome is thus elevated. When groupthink is in effect, the group tries to minimize conflict and reach consensus, even at the cost of abandoning critical thinking, suppressing alternative viewpoints, and preventing access to external influence. Shared information bias thus facilitates groupthink by providing a false sense of comfort and well being and a variety of contributions that are consistent with the views and preconceptions of group members. For more about groupthink, see "Design Errors and Groupthink," Point Lookout for April 16, 2014.

Biased assessments of importance

In groups, especially in real or virtual meetings, a commonly used heuristic for assessing the importance of an idea or insight is group members' sense of the number of times it arises in discussion. People don't actually count occurrences; a subjective sense seems to be sufficient. If the group is experiencing a shared information bias, that bias skews the subjective sense of the frequency of mentions of ideas. The group members then tend to assess the importance of frequently cited ideas as greater than they might actually be. And that can skew the discussion away from directions that might reveal insights and perspective far more important than anything discussed so far.

Increased persistence of wrong beliefs

If someone withholds an incorrect opinion, misinformation, or misapprehension, that they themselves have accepted, it's less likely to be refuted by another group member who knows that the withheld contribution is incorrect, misinformed, or confused, but who doesn't know that any group members subscribe to it. And the longer the confusion remains in the mind of the holder, the longer it's available in that person's mind to discredit truthful beliefs and accurate perceptions.

We'll continue next time with five more ways in which shared information bias inflicts harm on group processes.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Cognitive Biases at Work:

The Planning Fallacy and Self-Interest

A well-known cognitive bias, the planning fallacy, accounts for many unrealistic estimates of project cost and schedule. Overruns are common. But another cognitive bias, and organizational politics, combine with the planning fallacy to make a bad situation even worse.

Seven Planning Pitfalls: III

We usually attribute departures from plan to poor execution, or to "poor planning." But one cause of plan ineffectiveness is the way we think when we set about devising plans. Three cognitive biases that can play roles are the so-called Magical Number 7, the Ambiguity Effect, and the Planning Fallacy.

Seven More Planning Pitfalls: III

Planning teams, like all teams, are vulnerable to several patterns of interaction that can lead to counter-productive results. Two of these relevant to planners are a cognitive bias called the IKEA Effect, and a systemic bias against realistic estimates of cost and schedule.

Risk Acceptance: Naïve Realism

When we suddenly notice a "project-killer" risk that hasn't yet materialized, we sometimes accept the risk even though we know how seriously it threatens the effort. A psychological phenomenon known as naïve realism plays a role in this behavior.

The Risk of Astonishing Success

When we experience success, we're more likely to develop overconfidence. And when the success is so extreme as to induce astonishment, we become even more vulnerable to overconfidence. It's a real risk of success that must be managed.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

And on February 5: On Shaking Things Up

Newcomers to work groups have three tasks: to meet and get to know incumbent group members; to gain their trust; and to learn about the group's task and how to contribute to accomplishing it. General skills are necessary, but specifics are most important. Available here and by RSS on February 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info